Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: bangtailpoet Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

"Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values."

I think there is a typo here. "values" should read "profits."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cincykid Date: Nov 29, 2005 9:57am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

"Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values."

I'm speechless. For the past year, my energy over the Grateful Dead, and the music they created, has increased 100-fold in discovering the Archives. The energy came from the music, but just as powerful, were the reviews, and countless discussions built around this great Archive. "...not what we had in mind." Did you have in mind that a 24 year old such as myself would have such enthusiasm about a show you did in 1970 when you played it? Sad boys, so sad.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Liamfinnegan Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:20am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

So we were not building a community here? We were not meeting new people and bouncing ideas off of each other? We were not turning each other on to the best of this song or that song, or this segue, or that show?

How is what we were doing here not community building? This also goes out to those bozos who have posted here since last week who say that going back to the "old way" of trading is somehow morally superior- hey, the world has changed, and we live in a world where cyber exchanges is how we communicate. You make the philosophically inept conclusion that because we talk here and by e-mail, that we are all just staying home.

Not true, of course. What a lame excuse McNally gave.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: weatherreportsuite Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:43am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

Thanks again, Diana - I'm new to posting (I guess I'm a "deadhead") - but please everyone - send this article to all the heads you know:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/arts/music/30dead.html

Boycott the greedy bastards that robbed our hearts and souls!!! "Happy Holidays" - great business move you friggin' idiots!!!

Reply to this post
Reply

Poster: 3roin stones Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

I've got to admit that even though I was extremely saddened that our soundboards had been removed, I was still sitting on the fence regardinf the GDP boycott.
But after reading McNally's official statement I'm so enraged that I will boycott everything Dead related.
I wonder exactly who McNally's speaking on behalf of but I've got to assume that if this is an official statement that he speaks for the entire band.Shame on all of you.
Reality sets in-the Grateful Dead died with Jerry Garcia.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Burroughs Date: Nov 29, 2005 4:32pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: New York Times article- Grateful Dead

It is difficult to know which was more insulting and disheartening: the silence that spoke loudly of the band's obvious insouciance, or the garbled, pathetic, nearly hilarious, ostensible "explanation" of why they demanded the rules be changed. Community? Apparently the band has been taken in by the years of press questioning the intellectual prowess of their fans, as they surely take us for fools. Honestly, the fact that they want to sell the Vault to some McCorporation is their business, but the fact that they feel the need to lie about their motivations, while simultaneously taking a swipe at the LMA, is inexecusable. And to those who think that I, and others like me, have some misplaced sense of entitelment: there is no need to get into lawyerly wrangling. You should have learned long ago that when you give something away, and say "I don't care what you do with it", you have abdicated your right to control its destiny. This goes doubly once you SELL tapers tix. I suppose it should come as no suprise, however, that the band wouldn't respect Jerry's verbally articulated wishes/sentiments, since they wouldn't respect his sworn will. It is a sad, twisted irony that now GDP wants to assert their proprietary rights concerning their nebulous, auditory art after denying those same proprietary rights to Doug Irwin and Jerry in relation to Mr. Irwin's very tangible art.

This post was modified by Burroughs on 2005-11-30 00:32:03